[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:59:42 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 02:15:58AM -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> What does that ("honoring the terms of the GPL for standalone
>> Ghostscript") have to do with the copyright law, Hyman?
> > The GPL is not the copyright law, don't you agree with that, Hyman?
> Copyright law forbids Diebold from making copies of Ghostscript
> and distributing them. In order to do so legally, they must have
> permission from the copyright holder. That permission comes either
> from the GPL or from a separate license agreement with Artifex.

And if they are using the permission from the GNU GPL, they can even
make money out of it, their problem is a misjudgment between what is
commercial and what is proprietary.


Or not.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]